On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:21:22AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote: >Would other executables that are not stub executables but alternative >version to existing commands go there, too? AT&T have own versions of >dd, df, du, ed, expand, file, find, grep, od, pr, sed, sort, strings, >etc. The other tools that have no Cygwin pendant, like cql, ditto, >iffe, look, mamake, nmake, ratz, etc., they would go into /usr/bin?
I'm not interested in AT&T's implementations of other utilities, actually. Why would we include those? If they are a requirement for ksh then I'm not sure I want ksh. I'd suggest a simple ksh release without the plugins (or whatever they're called) and a separate package for the plugins. If you have other executables that are not plugins then I think they will just be confusing and I really don't think I'm interested. Actually, if the plugins work differently from the stand-alone versions then I have reservations, too. It sure sounds like this should be one (or many) different packages, though, regardless. cgf
